cultural landscapes: just landscapes or landscapes of justice?

http://phg.sagepub.com/Progress in Human Geography

http://phg.sagepub.com/content/27/6/787The online version of this article can be found at:

DOI: 10.1191/0309132503ph464pr

2003 27: 787Prog Hum GeogrDon Mitchell

Cultural landscapes: just landscapes or landscapes of justice?

Published by:

http://www.sagepublications.com

can be found at:Progress in Human GeographyAdditional services and information for

http://phg.sagepub.com/cgi/alertsEmail Alerts:

http://phg.sagepub.com/subscriptionsSubscriptions:

http://www.sagepub.com/journalsReprints.navReprints:

http://www.sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.navPermissions:

http://phg.sagepub.com/content/27/6/787.refs.htmlCitations:

What is This?

- Dec 1, 2003Version of Record >>

at Geographisches Institut on August 26, 2014phg.sagepub.comDownloaded from at Geographisches Institut on August 26, 2014phg.sagepub.comDownloaded from

http://phg.sagepub.com/

http://phg.sagepub.com/content/27/6/787

http://www.sagepublications.com

http://phg.sagepub.com/cgi/alerts

http://phg.sagepub.com/subscriptions

http://www.sagepub.com/journalsReprints.nav

http://www.sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.nav

http://phg.sagepub.com/content/27/6/787.refs.html

http://phg.sagepub.com/content/27/6/787.full.pdf

http://online.sagepub.com/site/sphelp/vorhelp.xhtml



Progress in Human Geography 27,6 (2003) pp. 787-796

Cultural landscapes: just landscapesor landscapes of justice?Don MitchellDepartment of Geography, Maxwell School, Syracuse University, 144 Eggers Hall,Syracuse, NY 13244-1020, USA

So what is the state of geography today? It is in a mess - hyphenated, obfuscated, as confused as it is confusing.Why? Society is itself degenerating. The culture is coarse, vulgar, prostituted, chaotic, 'dummied down'. We arein desperate need of intellectual reinforcements, and geography can help.

William Bunge (2001: 76-77)

In fact, '[w]hat is needed', writes George Henderson (2003: 196), 'is a concept oflandscape that helps point the way to those interventions that can bring about muchgreater social justice. And what landscape study needs even more is a concept oflandscape that will assist the development of the very idea of social justice.' This isespecially crucial, now, because 'the study of landscape, that thing which so oftenevokes the plane on which normal, everyday life is lived - precisely because of thepremium it places on the everyday - must stand up to the facts of a world in crisis, tothe fact that the condition of everyday life is, for many people, the interruption ordestruction of everyday life' (Henderson, 2003). In exactly this sense, 'landscape' is far,far more than the 'dreamwork of empire', as W.J.T. Mitchell once called it (quoted inCosgrove, 2003: 264): it is rather the very foundation, the very groundwork of empire.

That landscape is a groundwork - not just a dreamwork - of empire is implicitthroughout Kenneth Olwig's (2002) important new study of the relationship betweenlandscape and the body politic. Olwig's interest in Landscape, nature, and the body politicis not so much with empire, per se, but rather with the construction of the modem Euro-American state and polity (which itself is necessarily imperialist), and how this con-struction was accomplished through the usurpation and transformation of landscapes- such as those in early modern Northern Europe - that themselves were politicallandscapes in the truest sense of the term (p. 18). They were polities, with specific setsof rights, specific juridical relations, and certain conceptions of justice that derived frompeople living in and on the land, working with it, and possessing it. In this sense thelandscape represented the desires and needs, the customs and forms of justice of the

10.1 191/03091 32503ph464pr0 Arnold 2003

at Geographisches Institut on August 26, 2014phg.sagepub.comDownloaded from


788 Cultural landscapes

people who made them. Dialectically, Olwig notes, 'the abode of the land is created byabiding by the law' (p. 18) and so 'the material face of the land reflected the social faceof the landscape polity.... The physical environment was a reflection of the politicallandscape' (p. 21).

Yet landscapes of this sort tended to get in the way of the imperial ambitions of anynumber of European monarchs and lesser royals. Their denizens tended to defend themand to resent their loss.1 So landscape in this substantive, political sense served as achallenge to imperial power: the question for imperial power was how to make thelandscape reflect its interests rather than the interests of its inhabitants. The questionwas how landscapes could effectively be taken from their 'owners', be diverted to adifferent purpose, and through that a new image of the polity constructed. How couldthe landscape be changed?

Olwig's answer to this historical question is both familiar and depressing: it is a storyof out-and-out destruction of ways of life, even if this story is masked in a rhetoric andpractice of landscape 'improvement' overseen by such luminaries as Inigo Jones. Thegenius of Olwig's analysis is that it shows that the seeds of change - of landscape'salienation, and thus the transformation of the landscape polity and the modes of repre-sentation embodied in the landscape - were found in the landscape itself; since 'thephysical environment was a reflection of the political landscape' (p. 21) the trick was toremake the physical environment so it reflected a different kind of polity. The trick wasto destroy the landscape in order to 'improve' it - and in the process to instill a new rela-tionship between land, law and justice.What Olwig narrates, then, is a landscape history of expropriation and alienation (see

Olwig, 2004). His is a story of the social injustice of landscape; but in so telling this storyhe also provides some of the tools that will be necessary to reformulate the concept oflandscape in the manner Henderson calls for. What Landscape, nature, and the body politicprovides, in other words, is, along with an important historical excavation of the rootsof our contemporary landscape way of seeing, an equally important excavation of aquite different way of seeing landscape's relationship to law and social justice. Hesuggests that beneath the dreamwork and groundwork of empire lies a very differentrelationship between people and their landscape, one that is never fully repressed: thereis a struggle for landscape, and it is at the same time the struggle for justice.Such an excavation is especially important as America embarks on its latest imperial

adventures. It is doubly important now, because, as then, the landscape of empire isevery bit as much a landscape of destruction as it is a landscape of production. Theseare destructive times, indeed. In the two years since I wrote my last progress report, wehave seen this: the attack on the Pentagon and the World Trade Center and the latter'ssubsequent collapse; the ensuing brutal war on the people of Afghanistan under theguise of rooting out Al-Qaeda and the Taliban, a war that destroyed what little infra-structure was left in an already devastated country and which has killed more civiliansthan were killed in the September 11 attacks; the months-long siege and destruction ofPalestinian towns by an Israeli occupying army sent in to avenge the death anddestruction dealt by Palestinian suicide bombers (who themselves were avenging thedeath and destruction that is so central a part of Israel's colonization of Palestine); themassive destruction of (fictitious) value on the world stock markets during summer2002, and the destruction of the Argentine economy that preceded it (a destruction ofworking people's savings and livelihoods so that overseas banks could be spared their



Don Mitchell 789

own folly); and, of course, the invasion and occupation - accompanied by a massivedestruction of infrastructure - of Iraq on a trumped-up pretext that it was poised andready to use so-called weapons of mass destruction, itself a destruction of even thepretense of democracy. All of these are (in addition to everything else they are) destruc-tions of landscape, destructions of real physical places and real people, and suchdestruction always needs to be contested. As geographers, we can provide some of the'intellectual reinforcements' Bunge calls for: we have a lot of tools for understandingand helping to put an end to the destruction of landscape. I wonder if we have anyinterest in doing so. We certainly have interest in understanding the production oflandscape,2 and all the myriad cultural processes and politics that go into that. But howmuch do we care about its destruction?3 We are enamored with the affirmative, withseeking out even the smallest glimmers of hope in a world that for the majority reallyis degenerate, really is, on the whole, a rotten place.4

Writing in the wake of the September 11 attacks, and reflecting on the state of urbantheory, Andrew Kirby (2002) makes an argument that is just as true for landscapestudies. Since the awful bombings of Guemica, Nanking and Berlin (and we could addHiroshima, London and Dresden), 'we have worked hard to produce a fiction that suchdestruction will not occur again, in an era of smart bombs, economic sanctions and pro-fessional armies. Yet this is nothing more than a convenient fiction, as even smartweapons do damage . . .' (p. 1).5 'It is not hard to see where such fictions come from', hecontinues (p. 1). 'For ten years and more we have swerved into a cul-de-sac, in whichmetaphor, like irony, has taken precedence. The city has been reduced to a narrative andit is that textual landscape - rather than its more gritty counterpart - that has come tooccupy our attention' (p. 1). So, in Kirby's estimation (p. 2):

Contemporary postmodem urbanism has failed us, as it has drawn us away from an understanding of citiesand their populations. While we should be devastated by images of death and destruction, we should not besurprised to see a city facing problems of emergency management that have stretched everything to breakingpoint.... Everyone should have a better understanding of the complexities of urban life, and part of ourproblem of having lost that instinctive grasp reflects, in some significant part, the abject failure of manyacademics to maintain the city as a real object of study - not a metaphor, not a symbol, but a very complexsystem that requires explanation and an equally public discourse.

So too, it bears repeating, with landscape.This is not to argue that attention to symbol and metaphor is not important. It is. But

it is only important to the degree that it provides a window on, and a way into, thephysical city, the material landscape, the real social relations that make up the substanceof women's and men's lives.6 What tools do landscape geographers have that canprovide the intellectual reinforcements necessary to understand the constant destructionof landscape such that we can help advance the production of a more just, lessdegenerate landscape? Now is an appropriate time for such prospective, rather than ret-rospective, questions. The editors of Progress in Human Geography have determined topause, at least for now, reports on the cultural landscape, in part because in theirestimation (and mine too) the vibrant theoretical ferment of landscape studies thatmarked the late 1980s and 1990s has begun to wane. So it is an appropriate moment toregroup and perhaps to reorientate landscape studies. Like George Henderson, I thinkthey need to be reorientated in a more explicitly social justice direction.

In his highly illuminating essay,7 Henderson (2003) argues that landscape ingeography can be broken down into four dominant discourses: landscape as landschaft;




landscape as social space; the epistemological landscape ('landscape as the materialrevelation of human practice and thought'; p. 189); and the apocryphal landscape('landscape as a way of seeing, especially a way of seeing that relishes the gaze, thatasserts power by privileging perspectival vision, which, far from being a mere way ofseeing, informs the actual, material making of places'; p. 192).8 One could add - andprobably should add, since it forms perhaps the strongest focus of landscaperesearch in the past few years - landscape as a concretization and maker of memory.9Yet Henderson's point is not really to be exhaustive; rather, it is to be proscriptive(p. 196):

Our efforts to intervene in landscape must be tested against a whole set of other issues: the concern for security,safety, and joy in one's work; the struggle for wages that guarantee a good life; the question of who gets todecide what work is, what work gets done, and what goods get made; the fight against excessive personal andcorporate accumulation of wealth and power; the idolatry of the market The list could go on ....

It should include the struggle against racism, sexism and homophobia; the never-ending battle against genocide and for a decent, healthy life for all; and the eliminationof states (to use a phrase from President Bush's advisor Paul Wolfowitz) - states like myown - intent on building an empire out of the blood and toil of ordinary people aroundthe world, an empire made possible only through the destruction of the lives andlivelihoods of others.To put this in different terms, landscape research must be about all manner of other

things than just the landscape itself. Again Henderson (2003) is worth quoting (p. 336,note 1):

I think the promise of the landscape concept is that adjectives such as cultural, social, political, and economic oughtto be already folded into what we mean by landscape, or at least the best of such meanings. I advocate a conceptof landscape that indudes the very best reasons to pay attention to it. Put another way, could we, in the veryfirst instance, define landscape in such a way that we understand why the cultural, social, political, or economicmight matter?

Or, put yet another way, landscape may demand a theory of landscape, but it alsodemands that theories of capital circulation and crisis, of race and gender, and ofgeopolitics and power be built right into it. We can no longer afford to assume thefetishized landscape as our starting-point.10 The recent reconsideration of J.B. Jackson'sideas and career - of which Henderson's essay is a part - shows just how much isgained when this sort of material complexity is made central to landscape analysis (see,for example, Schein, 2003; Wright, 2003), and how much is lost when it is not (e.g.,Lewis, 2003; Scott Brown, 2003).As Schein (2003: 202) argues in that volume, seeing landscape as an 'unwitting

autobiography' (in Peirce Lewis's, 1979, famous phrase) 'suggests that landscapeprimarily is the result of human activity, material evidence that can be read to makeany number of cultural observations'. Such empiricism, however, 'leaves thelandscape itself out of social and cultural processes (it is inert and exists as the detritusor spoor of cultural activity)'. What difference might it make, then, if rather than seeinglandscape a priori as evidence of some culture, or national identity, or act of power orresistance, we started instead by taking Clyde Woods' (2002) experiences seriously(p. 62):

Unfortunately, I have been forced to witness the destruction of one African American community after the otherover the last thirty-five years. I saw major sections ofmy hometown of Baltimore burned to the ground after the



Don Mitchell 791

assassination of Reverend Martin Luther King, Jr. in 1968. The 1970s brought the demolition of the homes of athousand neighbors in order to build a one mile freeway to nowhere. For at least thirty years, toxic fumes havespewed forth from factories located across the street from nearby residential blocks.And those were the good ole days ....

Woods provides witness to the destruction of whole peoples in Baltimore through drugaddiction, AIDS and venereal disease, the systematic destruction of the educationsystem, police brutality and mass incarceration. His studies at UCLA on the persistenceof rural poverty - especially African American poverty - in the South showed himplanned starvations, usurpations of land and the willing connivance of social scientists(see Woods, 1998). In the 'killing fields' (Woods, 2002: 62) of Los Angeles itself, Woodswitnessed the riots in the aftermath of the exoneration of the police in their brutalbeating of Rodney King: 'Then I returned to Baltimore just in time to see the citythrough a televised party designed to celebrate the demolition of hundreds of units ofpublic housing' (p. 62).Or what if our landscape geography began from Ruth Wilson Gilmore's (2002a: 16)

argument that the twentieth century should be understood as the 'age of humansacrifice', an age of genocide that really sees no sign of letting up (see also Hewitt, 2001),and that the landscape (in Gilmore's case the prison landscape) must be seen not onlyas evidence of this age of human sacrifice (which it is) but also as a specific 'geograph-ical solution to socioeconomic problems, politically organized by the state . . .' (Gilmore,2002b: 268)?A landscape geography able to respond to and intervene in this - to intervene in the

destruction of landscape and livelihood that is everyday life for most AfricanAmericans in the USA - and to other currents of racist uneven development around theworld (Gilmore, 2002b), would require several things:

* it would have to be undergirded by a theory of race and a normative commitmentto antiracism;11

* it would have to be grounded in a theory of uneven geographical development, ableto draw deeply on theories of disinvestment and capital flight as well as theories offinancial and real estate capital (Breitbach and Mitchell, 2003);

* it would have to integrate theories of uneven development with theories of spatial'fixes' not only as Harvey (1999; 2001) talks about them, but even more as Gilmore(2002a; 2002b, 2004) does;

* it would have to be deeply social-historical, refusing to satisfy itself with surfacereadings of the landscape and delving instead into the gritty, often ugly, sometimesenergizing, social history of specific places (see Wilson, 2000a; 2000b; Blomley, 2003;Linkon and Russo, 2002);12

* it would, that is, have to be based on records, documents, interviews, empiricalevidence and on a means to integrate that evidence (for excellent examples, seeHarner, 2001; Page, 2003);

* it would therefore have to have a theory of scale at its heart, understanding how thehistories and geographies of particular places and landscapes cannot be understoodoutside an analysis of processes working at smaller and larger scales, and that scaleis a means to see how the violent destruction of landscape (and livelihood) in oneplace can redound very much to the benefit of landscapes (and people) in otherplaces (see Mitchell, 2003);13




* it would have to have, also at its heart, what Henderson (2003: 190) calls a 'conflictmodel of social theory' - a theory of power and its exercise.

What can landscape studies say about all this? How can they intervene in it? How canthey, for example, help to 'collectively identify geographical research issues of race andracism . .. as part of a movement within geography to reignite geographic research onrace which had diminished since its peak in the 1960s and 1970s' (Schein, 2002: 3),which was the goal of the workshop at which Woods presented his remarks? Inparticular, how can they tie such a focus on race (or other aspects of identity) into awider theory of landscape production and destruction - the geographic practices (toappropriate Cresswell, 2003) that define the material, representational and affectivelandscapes within which we live?One answer became apparent in a year-long study seminar held in 2002-2003 at the

Center forAdvanced Study in Oslo, Norway. Entitled 'Landscape, Law, and Justice' andorganized by geographers at the Norwegian University of Science and Technology inTrondheim (especially Michael Jones, Gunhild Setten and Kenneth Olwig), the studygroup was comprised of geographers, sociologists, legal scholars, historians and othersfrom the Nordic countries, Scotland and - in the person of David Lowenthal -London/Berkeley. At semi-public seminars, and eventually in a week long conferenceheld in June 2003, participants explored the relationship between different common andstatutory law traditions and the (literal)- place of justice, the relationship between lawand identity, and the way that contestations over different forms of both formal andinformal justice both shape the land and shape the law. In these seminars, landscapewas quite something different than what we had come to think of it as in Anglo-American geography. While some - like the Finnish radical Ari Lehtinen and the pan-Nordic Ken Olwig - wanted to argue for a specifically Nordic landscape (one formedout of different social relations, put to different social ends, given different socialmeanings), it wavs not just in that narrow sense that the discourse of landscape wasdifferent. While the group's interdisciplinarity required special care that geographers(or others) did not use their standard theoretical languages easily or withoutexplanation, it was also not that need for a more accessible language that made thediscourse different. Rather, it was the degree to which the seminars took the substan-tiveness of landscape (to use Olwig's, 1996, term) so seriously. Landscape was more thana way of seeing, more than a representation, more than ideology - though it was verydeeply all of these. It was a substantive, material reality, a place lived, a world producedand transformed, a commingling of nature and society that is struggled over and in. Inthese struggles, productions and lives, law (as a social practice) was critical, andnormative goals of justice were always foremost. Discussion of struggle, justice, thedeadweight and liberatory practices of common law, the strange careers of statutorylaw, the changing etymologies of landscape practice - all of these gave form, vitalityand especially importance to landscape.

Or, as the Swedish landscape geographer Mats Widgen put it in remarks at one of theseminars, it is important to understand how 'law' is like the chemicals in a darkroom:it 'develops' the landscape (though the converse is true too - landscape, as Olwig, 2002,has shown, can be crucial in developing the law). Illustrating this idea with pictures ofa Kenyan hillside before and after changes in property law, Widgren showed how aparticular view emerged from the alchemy of land and law, and how the traces of new



Don Mitchell 793

ways of life were made visible to the distant viewer, new ways of life that were equallythe destruction of old ones.14 The new landscape that emerged was not only evidence ofa changed relationship between people, land and law, but was that changed relationship.The landscape was an active part of it.

This tight relationship between landscape and law has been developed most fully, inthe Anglo-American context, in recent work by Nicholas Blomley (2003), who was thekeynote speaker in the concluding conference of the 'Landscape, Law, and Justice'seminar. In a wide-ranging, impassioned and at times beautiful new book, Blomley(2003) explores how the relationship between land and law is worked out through thepolitics of urban property, a politics far more complex and indeterminate than theseeming stability of property as a social fact seems to allow. Blomley argues - convinc-ingly - that any landscape geography interested in justice has to pay close attention tothe theory, history and contemporary struggles over property, a point also driven homein Olwig's (2002; 2004) work. This is one key step in returning to the study of urban orother landscapes as 'real object[s] of study', as Kirby (2002) calls for. But other steps areneeded. As Gilmore (2004) shows so compellingly, relations of property - how to freeup land where it is scarce, to dispose of it where it is abundant, and to use it 'produc-tively' within an economy that is founded on destruction and rank injustice - arethemselves deeply entwined in all manner of other relations, from race and gender toclass and power, and that the law-landscape nexus is one through which what she calls'breathtakingly cruel shifts in the meaning and practice of justice' are made concrete.This landscape of injustice, logical as it is in terms of crisis-laden capital flows, is a keycomponent of society's 'degeneration' (as Bunge calls it).Landscape studies not only can, but now must, develop the intellectual tools

necessary to be part not only of the intellectual reinforcements needed to combat thisdegeneration but also of the political reinforcements. Landscape studies can no longerbe only about just landscape. Landscape is too important to be allowed, any longer, tobe the dreamwork - or the groundwork - of empire. Landscape studies must bededicated to seeing that landscape becomes the groundwork - and dreamwork - ofjustice.

Notes

1. For an important account of how landscapes - homes, lands, livelihoods - were expropriated,and how that expropriation was resisted in imperial Canada, see Harris (2002). For other recentcompelling examinations of colonial landscape transformation in North America, see the special issueof Cultural Geographies on 'North American Spaces/Postcolonial Stories' edited by Kay Anderson andMona Domosh and comprising articles by Braun (2002), Domosh (2002) Morin (2002); and Olund(2002).

2. Or, more accurately, the production of landscape images in this or that text.3. To my knowledge there is only one book in geography that explicitly looks at landscape in

relation to destruction: Jakle and Wilson (1992). There is a minor subgenre of research in geographyon the destruction or removal of monuments (for a recent example, see Whalen, 2003) and invocationsof 'creative destruction' in the journal literature are fairly common, but sustained meditations on thepolitics and practices of destruction themselves are rare.

4. Even the most polluted landscapes, landscapes dedicated entirely to the art and science ofdestruction - like America's nuclear weapons laboratories - are seen more in terms of production thandestruction: see Mercer (2002).




5. The day I first wrote these words, 23 July, 2002, Israel bombed the Gaza City apartment block ofa leading Islamic militant, killing him, his family, and 14 or 15 others including children in a horrificdisplay of disproportionate, barbaric force. Hamas and other organizations promised to step up theircampaign of suicide bombing in response - a promise they made good on. The result was a year of tit-for-tat killings in Palestine/Israel, stepped-up bulldozering of Palestinian orchards, homes andbusinesses by the Israeli army, and a brutal war- of attrition that only now (uly 2003) seems to bepausing.

6. For two different, wide-ranging approaches into the materialities of urbanism, see Merrifield(2002a; 2002b).

7. Published as part of a collection of essays devoted to analyses of the life, work and influence ofJ.B. Jackson (Wilson and Groth, 2003).

8. For an excellent recent discussion of this last form, see Cosgrove (2003).9. For recent examples, see Azaryahu (2003), Charlesworth (2004), Foster (2004), Leib (2002) and

Nagel (2002), but see especially the remarkable book Steeltown USA: work and memory in Youngstown(Linkon and Russo, 2002). Written by American Studies and labor studies scholars (who are alsofounders of the important Center for Working Class Studies in Youngstown), Steeltown drawsextensively on both landscape and labor geography, but moves beyond both by rooting them deeplyin the specific struggles and affectations of place.

10. The recent republication of Harvey's The limits to capital (1999) and several of his early essayson the built environment (see Harvey, 2001) serve as important reminders of the value of seriouslyconsidering the landscape as the means for and the concretization of the circulation of social relation-ships (including especially value).

11. In this it would have to be committed to unveiling, debunking and destroying the cant thatserves as official knowledge about such things as race - which is just what Pred (2000) does in hisexpose of racism in officially non-racist Sweden. Rich Schein's (2002; 2003) excellent recent essaysindicate a starting-point for anti-racist landscape geography.

12. In his examination over the struggles to memorialize Arthur Ashe on Richmond, Virginia'smost prominent - and Confederate - street, Leib (2002) provides an excellent case study of how raceworks through, is protected in and sometimes gets - at least partially - overthrown in the landscape.As he himself is utterly clear in noting, however, his is a case study of the symbolic landscape and theeventual erection of the Arthur Ashe monument stands as a symbolic one (the symbolism of which isin fact contested within African American communities as well as by white residents). What he doesnot say (nor, of course, does he need to) is that such symbolic victories do not address many - most -of the material problems facing African Americans in racist Richmond.

13. For an excellent critique of the teleology that - at least implicitly - frames historical-materialistaccounts of landscape like my own, see Hinchliffe (2003:214-15). Gilmore (2002a: 22, note 5) providesthe best rejoinder as to why at least some teleology is necessary in any normative project:' "Freedom"is shorthand for the object of history.'

14. Mats Widgren made these remarks in a presentation to the seminar in December 2002.

References

Azaryahu, M. 2003: RePlacing memory: the reori- of property development and landscape inentation of Buchenwald. Cultural Geographies Sioux Falls, South Dakota. In McLaran, A.,10,1-20. editor, Making space: property development and

urban planning, London: Arnold, 212-33.Blomley, N. 2003: Unsettling the city: urban land Bunge, W. 2001: Author's response: geography theand the politics ofproperty. New York: Routledge. innocent science - a completed geography

Braun, B. 2002: Colonialism's afterlife: vision and awaiting its birth in print. Progress in Humanvisuality on the Northwest Coast. Cultural Geography 25, 75-77.Geographies 9, 202-47.

Breitbach, C. and Mitchell, D. 2003: Growth Charlesworth, A. 2004: A corner of the field thatmachines and growth pains: the contradictions is forever Spielberg's: understanding the moral



Don Mitchell 795

landscapes of the site of the former KLPiaszow Krak6w. Cultural Geographies, inpress.

Cosgrove, D. 2003: Landscape and the Europeansense of space - eying nature. In Anderson, K.,Domosh, M., Pile, S. and Thrift, N., editors,Handbook of cultural geography, London: Sage,249-68.

Cresswell, T. 2003: Landscape and the oblitera-tion of practice. In Anderson, K., Domosh, M.,Pile, S. and Thrift, N., editors, Handbook ofcultural geography, London: Sage, 269-89.

Domosh, M. 2002: A 'civilized' commerce:gender, 'race', and empire at the 1893Chicago Exposition. Cultural Geographies 9,181-201.

Foster, J. 2004: Creating a temenos, positing 'SouthAfricanism': material memory, landscapepractice, and the circulation of identity atDelville Wood. Cultural Geographies, in press.

Gilmore, R.W. 2002a: Fatal couplings of powerand difference: notes on racism and geography.Professional Geographer 54, 15-24.

2002b: Race and globalization. In Johnston,R.J., Taylor, P. and Watts, M., editors,Geographies ofglobal change: remapping the world,Oxford: Blackwell, 261-74.

2004: Golden gulag: prisons, surplus, crisis, andopposition in California, 1982-2000. Berkeley,CA: University of California Press.

Harner, J. 2001: Place identity and copper miningin Sonora, Mexico. Annals of the Association ofAmerican Geographers 91, 660-80.

Harris, R.C. 2002: Making native space: colonialism,resistance, and reserves in British Columbia.Vancouver, BC: University of British ColumbiaPress.

Harvey, D. 1999: The limits to capital. London:Verso (originally published 1982).

2001: Spaces of capital. New York: Routledge.Henderson, G. 2003: What (else) we talk aboutwhen we talk about landscape: for a return tothe social imagination. In Wilson, C. and Groth,P., editors, Everyday America: cultural landscapestudies after J.B. Jackson, Berkeley, CA:University of California Press, 178-98.

Hewitt, K. 2001: The John Wiley lecture -

between Pinochet and Kropotkin: state terror,human rights, and the geographers. TheCanadian Geographer 45, 338-55.

Hinchliffe, S. 2003: 'Inhabiting' - landscapes andnatures. In Anderson, K., Domosh, M., Pile, S.

and Thrift, N., editors, Handbook of culturalgeography, London: Sage, 207-25.

Jakle, J. and Wilson, D. 1992: The derelictlandscape: the wasting of America's builtenvironment. Savage, MD: Rowman andLittlefield.

Kirby, A. 2002: Everything is solid, after all. Cities19,1-2.

Leib, J. 2002: Separate times, shared spaces:Arthur Ashe, Monument Avenue and thepolitics of Richmond, Virginia's symboliclandscape. Cultural Geographies 9,286-312.

Lewis, P. 1979: Axioms for reading the landscape:some guides to the American scene. In Meinig,D., editor, The interpretation of ordinarylandscapes, New York: Oxford University Press,11-32.

2003: The monument and the bungalow: theintellectual legacy of J.B. Jackson. In Wilson, C.and Groth, P., editors, Everyday America:cultural landscape studies after J.B. Jackson,Berkeley, CA: University of California Press,85-108.

Linkon, S. and Russo, J. 2002: Steeltown USA:work and memory in Youngstown. Lawrence, KS:University of Kansas Press.

Mercer, D. 2002: Future histories of Hanford: thematerial and semiotic production of alandscape. Cultural Geographies 9, 35-67.

Merrifield, A. 2002a: Dialectical urbanism. NewYork: Monthly Review Press.

2002b: MetroMarxism. New York: Routledge.Mitchell, D. 2003: California living, California

dying: dead labor and the political economy oflandscape. In Anderson, K., Domosh, M., Pile,S. and Thrift, N., editors, Handbook of culturalgeography, London: Sage, 233-48.

Morin, K. 2002: Postcolonialism and NativeAmerican geographies: the letters of Rosalie LaFlesche Farley, 1896-1899. Cultural Geographies9, 158-80.

Nagel, C. 2002: Reconstructing space, re-creatingmemory: sectarian politics and urban develop-ment in post-war Beirut. Political Geography 21,717-25.

Olund, E. 2002: From savage space to governablespace: the extension of United States judicialsovereignty over Indian Country in thenineteenth century. Cultural Geographies 9,129-57.




Olwig, K. 1996: Recovering the substantivenature of landscape. Annals of the Association ofAmerican Geographers 86, 630-53.

2002: Landscape, nature, and the body politic:from Britain's renaissance to America's new world.Madison, WI: University of Wisconsin Press.

2004: Representation and alienation in thepolitical land-scape. Cultural Geographies, inpress.

Page, B. 2003: Labor and the landscape ofAmerican Gothic. Labor History 44, 95-110.

Pred, A. 2000: Even in Sweden: racisms, racializedspaces, and the popular geographical imagination.Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.

Schein, R. 2002: Race, racism, and geography:introduction. Professional Geographer 54, 1-5.

2003: Normative dimensions of landscape.In Wilson, C. and Groth, P., editors, EverydayAmerica: cultural landscape studies after J.B.Jackson, Berkeley, CA: University of CaliforniaPress, 199-218.

Scott Brown, D. 2003: Learning from Brinck. InWilson, C. and Groth, P., editors, EverydayAmerica: cultural landscape studies after J.B.Jackson, Berkeley, CA: University of CaliforniaPress, 49-61.

Whalen, Y. 2003: The construction anddestruction of a colonial landscape: monu-ments to British monarchs in Dublin before andafter independence. Journal of HistoricalGeography 28, 508-33.

Wilson, B. 2000a: America's Johannesburg: industri-alization and racial transformation in Birmingham.Lanham, MD: Rowman and Littlefield.

2000b: Race and place in Birmingham: the civilrights and neighborhood movements. Lanham,MD: Rowman and Littlefield.

Wilson, C. and Groth, P., editors 2003: EverydayAmerica: cultural landscape studies after J.B.Jackson. Berkeley, CA: University of CaliforniaPress.

Woods, C. 1998: Development arrested: race, power,and the blues in the Mississippi Delta. London:Verso.

2002: Life after death. Professional Geographer54, 62-66.

Wright, G. 2003: On modem vernaculars and J.B.Jackson. In Wilson, C. and Groth, P., editors,Everyday America: cultural landscape studies afterJ.B. Jackson, Berkeley, CA: University ofCalifornia Press, 163-77.



cultural landscapes: just landscapes or landscapes of justice?

Documents